IMGpapers 1980–83

Newspapers of the International Marxist Group and its forerunners, 1980–83

Defend Longbridge 8

Socialist Action (League for Socialist Action) Vol. 4, No. 1, 1981 · p. 6 of the scan · 826 words

The scan: Socialist Action v4 no1 1981.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 1-5 of 6; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 6 of the scan

Despite the strike by 1500 workers at the Mini-Metro plant, Long bridge, the Edwardes' management has still refused to re-instate the 8 workers sacked for alleged "gross industrial misconduct".

Far from seeking a compromise, the Edwardes' management has shown it intends brooking no opposition to its plans to ram home speed-up and job loss in the period ahead. Edwardes arrogantly decared that - unless the workers reported to the plant on January 5 - they would all be sacked. Clearly, management was looking for a confrontation it thought it could win. Their policy has partly paid off. In the absence of any firm stance by the union leaders, the workers decided to drop strike action pending an independent enquiry' into the sackings.

SPARK The atmosphere at Longbridge, after continual attacks on working conditions, mounting speed-up and arbitrary lay-offs, was already tense. The spark that set off the tinder-box was management's attempt to introduce speed-up in the Trentham seat-build shop.

Workers refused to carry out a management call for 25 sets of seats per man per shift and - when seats were brought in from outside -rafused to handle them. Manage. ment responded by laying oii al the workers on the Metro chain and blaming the action on the men in dispute.

This attempt to split the workforce cut little ice, however, with Longbridge workers. 500 in the CABI Metro trim shop held an angry meeting and voted to march to management offices to tell the bosses how they felt.

VICTIMS On December 3, 12 workers were SMASH THE EDWARDES MASHT BL workers on the march last year. summoned to an "enquiry" into the protest march that had occurred a few weeks earlier. The company, it seems, already had statements from unnamed "witnesses" accusing the 12 of being the "ring-leaders" in the dispute.

When they arrived, they were called in one by one, the charges were laid against them and - after the hearing hour to prepare their "defence". This is democracy at British Leyland. They were called in individually to hear the company's final verdiet: 9 were sacked including † stewarüs).. weeks and 1 suspended "pending further enquiries"

The response of Longbridge workers was sharp. Angered by what was a clear case of victimisation, over 1500 downed tools and the stoppage began.

WEAK-KNEED For the Edwardes' management, of course, the victimisation of the Longbridge 9 is merely another step in their strategy of breaking shop-floor organisation at BL.

What made management so confident in its stance, however, the leaders of the AUEW and T&GWU have allowed Edwardes to walk rough-shod over them.

They accepted the Edwardes plan - a recipe for speed-up and - they were given one lay-offs - and they bulldozed the workforce more recently to accept the company offer of a inflation is raging at over 15%.

= suspended ior :wo a to 1 rote by workers in BL in favour of strike action.

BACKDOWN The reason for this cowardly frightened by Edwardes' threat will be forced to close down.

have gone meekly along with agement plans.

ENQUIRY involve ACAS. is the weak-kneed attitude of the union leaders. Over the past year, down ENQUIRY 6.8% pay increase at a time when To do this. they had to over-rule return to work.

attitude is crystal-clear. They are that - if they don't play ball with attempts to "streamline" the company - the government will retuse further cash injections and sections challenged This fear has meant that they one will be safe. has served up, including late last year the open victimisation of convenor Derek Robinson, whose sole crime was criticism of the manSuch an attitude has determined their approach to the present dispute. Instead of calling for an immediate official strike, the union leaders have done everything possible to avoid the issue.

First of all, they suspended any action pending the outcome of the appeals of those dismissed. This resulted merely in the reduction of the number sacked from 9 to 8 Secondly, when Edwardes threatened to sack all workers who didn't turn up for work on January 5, the spineless AUEW leaders urged Led. their members to turn up. The T&GWU leaders called for an "independant" enquiry which would No section of the leadership attempted to defend the victimised members by calling for im-. mediate solidarity action - and threatening to extend it through BL unless the management backed It was this cowardly attitude by union leaders which has given Edwardes the green light to press ahead with attempts to destroy shop-floor organisation. It is also this attitude which. offering no perspective of struggle to the Longbridge workers, resulted in the The struggle is not yet over, however. Longbridge workers will be angrily awaiting the result of the "enquiry". If the 8 are not reinstated, the rank-and-file must organise to call Edwardes' bluff:

If his arbitrary power is not - and the 8 victims are allowed to remain sacked - no-

← Child Care Conference Charts FutureHeseltine Axes Housing →

Something wrong on this page?